Could the UK really have been considered a super power during WW2...

Could the UK really have been considered a super power during WW2? It seems like they did so little during WW2 compared to the other big players and even with their holding like India and Canada they would have never really stood a chance against Germany on their own. Even the US pretty much won the pacific war by themselves.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II
usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf
planetar65.blogspot.com/2012/10/german-divisions-deployed-in-wwii.html
warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Before I answer your question OP, I want to know exactly what you've read about concerning the second world war to come to such an erroneous and idiotic conclusion.

are you british by any chance

You are a retard. I'm pure Yankee.

No, I'm American.

My turn. Are you a product of Incest?

Are you some insecure mongoloid who enjoys creating shitty bait threads. How many threads do you see saying 'we British won the war' yet you obviously feel some need to create yet another hurr-anglos-overrated thread. Go read a book because your question is so contrived that a concise answer would require summarising the entire fucking war, every fucking theatre of operations.

but literally everything i said was true. or do you think the UK would have been able to beat nazi germany on its own?

how did the UK do more than germany, the USSR, or the USA during WW2?

the question wasn't "did the british win the war" you retarded limey it was "could the UK really be considered a super power during WW2" sorry i offended you lmao

>it seems like they did so little
They did a lot
>they would have never really stood a chance against Germany on their own
Except, you know, they did. For a year.
>the US pretty much won the Pacific war by themselves
They didn't

no they didn't do anything of those things

Yes they did, stop being silly

>but literally everything i said was true
No, it's not.

> or do you think the UK would have been able to beat nazi germany on its own?
That is also not what you claimed in the OP, stalemates are very much a thing.

>how did the UK do more than germany, the USSR, or the USA during WW2?
That's a change of your goalposts. Amazing how you've managed to do three in the space of 2 sentences.

The Germans were building steam powered tanks by the end of WW2. If you can single handedly naval blockade an entire continent, you're a super power.

what wasn't true exactly?

>stalemates are very much a thing.
there was no "stalemate" you mongoloid. the only thing that stopped germany from conquering the entire european continent was the soviet union.

>That's a change of your goalposts. Amazing how you've managed to do three in the space of 2 sentences

actually i haven't changed any goalposts. the original question was if they should be considered a superpower or not and if they did less than every other "superpower" in the war (they did you'd have to be literally retarded to deny that) then why should they?

>what wasn't true exactly?
Your claims in the OP, that the Britissh "did so little during WW2", or that they stood no chance against Germany on their own.

>there was no "stalemate" you mongoloid.
Yes there was, and it manifested around July of 1940, when Germany demonstrated their inability to knock out the RAF.

>actually i haven't changed any goalposts.
You're very stupid.

>they would have never really stood a chance against Germany on their own


>or do you think the UK would have been able to beat nazi germany on its own?

These are two different things you idiot.
>the original question was if they should be considered a superpower or not
Yes, they should be, as per the Miller definition of

>A country that has the capacity to project dominating power and influence anywhere in the world, and sometimes in more than one region of the globe at a time, and so may plausible attain the status of global hegemony".

The UK was capable of projecting nation-ending levels of force to multiple regions of the world at once. Therefore, they were a superpower.

>and if they did less than every other "superpower" in the war (they did you'd have to be literally retarded to deny that)
Irrelevant definition, and stupid besides. You could just as easily reframe it as

>Every other country did less than the USSR, (or America), so they were the only superpower.

Furthermore, you have 0 standards of what "doing more or less" than another country is. You could easily argue they produced more warmaking potential than Germany.

Consider suicide. If you won't do that, at least sterilize yourself.

>Yes there was, and it manifested around July of 1940, when Germany demonstrated their inability to knock out the RAF.
Not really. I don't know how you can look at something like that as a "stalemate" when Germany had conquered almost the entirety of Europe at the time and the UK had no chance to retake it on their own. Yeah we know the British had a great air force but you have a very odd definition of stalemate to be honest.

>The UK was capable of projecting nation-ending levels of force to multiple regions of the world at once. Therefore, they were a superpower.
So according to this logic the UK was a bigger super power than Germany because they could "project power to multiple regions" better? lmao

>doing more or less" than another country is. You could easily argue they produced more warmaking potential than Germany.

No you actually couldn't under any reasonable standard considering 80% of WW2 was fought on the Eastern front. EXTREMELY butthurt limey detected.

>Not really. I don't know how you can look at something like that as a "stalemate" when Germany had conquered almost the entirety of Europe at the time and the UK had no chance to retake it on their own.
Because Germany had no chance to decisively strike at Britain either.

>So according to this logic the UK was a bigger super power than Germany because they could "project power to multiple regions" better? lmao
That is the commonly accepted definition in IR. But I'm sure "Lmao" is a sufficient refutation to a term of art.

>No you actually couldn't under any reasonable standard considering 80% of WW2 was fought on the Eastern front.
Can you read?

> EXTREMELY butthurt limey detected.
Wrong again, retard.

britain did fuck all in ww2, lost singapore to japs on bicycles, did nothing in europe between dunkirk and d-day. They helped out in africa but were fighting shitty italians and outnumbered german. all they really did was sit on their island while the raf duelled the germans

How little of an effect did this have?

> So according to this logic the UK was a bigger super power than Germany because they could "project power to multiple regions" better? lmao
Yes. The man stated the definition of super power and you've just agreed with it, not sure what you're laughing at.

> EXTREMELY butthurt limey detected
That's the third time you've responded with this. I think the purpose of this thread is pretty clear now.

>I have no idea what the Italian campaign was because my mother and father were brother and sister.
>I'll just pretend that the loss of the Philippines is somehow substantially different than the loss of Malaya because it fits my narrative I picked up from /int/.

it doesn't matter if you can project power if that power is 3rd rate

>they did so little during WW2
They did more than anyone else aside from the Soviets.

>empire
>against tyranny

when did I mention the Philippines?

>Because Germany had no chance to decisively strike at Britain either.

And? The only reason for that was because of the British navy and because the UK happened to be on an island. What the fuck kind of retarded logic is this, if the UK was on the mainland they would have been steamrolled by the German military. Germany would have been able to conquer the entire European continent but UK but because the UK is an island its a "stalemate"?

>That is the commonly accepted definition in IR. But I'm sure "Lmao" is a sufficient refutation to a term of art.

It's a very narrow definition and under it a country like Rome couldn't be considered a super power. Objectively speaking Germany would have been able to beat the UK during a war in the 1940's so trying to retreat to that definition as if it has any strict merit seems a bit silly.

>Can you read?
Can you?

>Wrong again, retard.
Highly doubtful.

well no the germans objectively did more (obviously) and the US when accounted for lend lease had a larger impact as well

lol

They were a great power certainly but in decline, I personally believe there were never 'super powers' until the Cold War US and USSR

according to the people here the UK, germany, the usa, japan and anyone who had a halfway decent navy is a superpower.

I suppose since there are something like 10 superpowers today?

>Even the US pretty much won the pacific war by themselves
Is this what Americans actually believe?

This is a really pathetic post user. I implore you to reconsider your life

considering the battle of midway literally won the pacific war, yes

Extremely butthurt limey with no counter points continuously resorts to ad homs

you should feel proud

You understand that Japan had more forces stationed in China than in the entirety of the rest of the Pacific put together?

Dude, I'm not even the same guy. I just saw your post and it looked so desperate. But you know, keep doing what you're doing. I'm reading this thread and it looks like you're never going to change your mind on anything

That's precisely the point, you didn't. If Britain is a loser of WW2 because of the Malaya campaign, why isn't the U.S. because of the Philippines campaign? Both featured enormously larger forces of mostly colonial troops leavened by a small stiffening of troops from the home country swiftly defeated by the Japanese.

>And? The only reason for that was because of the British navy and because the UK happened to be on an island
And the only reason that Britain didn't stomp Germany back in 1936 was because public opinion wasn't up for another European war. How are either of these things relevant?

>Germany would have been able to conquer the entire European continent but UK but because the UK is an island its a "stalemate"?
Germany could not decisively strike at Britain. Therefore, they were stalemated at best.

>It's a very narrow definition and under it a country like Rome couldn't be considered a super power.
Precisely. Superpowers are an artifact of the 20th century.

>Objectively speaking Germany would have been able to beat the UK during a war in the 1940's
No it wouldn't, because it could not strike at Britain. At best they could sit around and do a fat lot of pinprick raids until trying to get a peace treaty.

>Can you?
Yes, now please explain how your response of 80% of the war being fought on the eastern front (which is false, by the way), in any way responds to the point that Britain produced more war material than Germany did. Use your brain for this one, or better yet, someone else's.

>Highly doubtful.
Becauase someone disagreeing with your shitposting MUST be British, right? It's 5:30 or so in the morning in London, but the BIDF is active, ready to put an end to all those nasty people writing slander against old blighty.

Kill yourself. There are bacteria who could use the oxygen you breathe more usefully.

is it really third rate if it causes imports to completely collapse?

because america had other successes

they had a good navy but its not like their army was amazing, they barely had one until the war started. They can get across to the other side of the world but they can't win the battle once they get there

>And the only reason that Britain didn't stomp Germany back in 1936 was because public opinion wasn't up for another European war. How are either of these things relevant?

Are you actually retarded or do you think the UK could have "stomped" Germany on their own? wow

>No it wouldn't, because it could not strike at Britain. At best they could sit around and do a fat lot of pinprick raids until trying to get a peace treaty.

No "at best" they could have conquered the entire European continent while Churchill say on his island.

>Yes, now please explain how your response of 80% of the war being fought on the eastern front (which is false, by the way)
Well no its not considering 80% of the casualties were on the eastern front not sure what you want considering this viewpoint is common knowledge and peddled by pretty much every historian.

>Becauase someone disagreeing with your shitposting MUST be British, right?
You are obviously a limey or incredibly retarded. You aren't fooling anyone.

samefag or very ignorant not sure which

Good posting user

>aussies hold tobruk for months
>they leave and brits take over
>they lose it in a few weeks

world war II was a war with economics and production at the forefront, constricting German trade was a much greater contribution by Britain than any army they could raise

stop samefagging

I have made two posts in this thread so far and I don't think ignorant is the word I'd use to describe the one who recognizes the overwhelming bulk of Japan's commitment was in China.

>because america had other successes
So did Britain.

>Are you actually retarded or do you think the UK could have "stomped" Germany on their own? wow
In 1936? Sure. The military buildup had barely begun, and Germany had barely begun re-arming, and had an army that didn't swell higher than 6 figures, all of it raw.

>No "at best" they could have conquered the entire European continent while Churchill say on his island.
They stood no chance of conquering the Soviets; and even with all of Europe under their thumb, they had no means to get to England.

>Well no its not considering 80% of the casualties were on the eastern front
Wrong, retard. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_casualties_in_World_War_II
You only get that number by conveniently counting "Killed" as the only casualties. Interestingly enough, the British held the highest number of German PoWs, 3.6 million by the war's end. But none of those count, right?

>not sure what you want considering this viewpoint is common knowledge and peddled by pretty much every historian.
No, it's peddled by idiots like you who read one figure from Rudiger Overmans and then completely misunderstand it (or Wehraboos deliberately seeking to distort things)

...

>The only reason for that was because of the British navy and because the UK happened to be on an island
If Britain was on the continent and not an island it would have had a large land army at the outset, then it would have been UK and France's land armies against Germany.

Do you think before you post?

>So did Britain.
no they literally didn't.

>In 1936? Sure. The military buildup had barely begun, and Germany had barely begun re-arming, and had an army that didn't swell higher than 6 figures, all of it raw.
not really even in 1936 germany would have beaten the UK in a european conflict

>Wrong, retard.
No its not wrong. You're counting all the POWs who surrendered after it was clear Germany lost the war and ran to the western allies because they wanted to avoid the Soviets. You are beyond retarded.

>No, it's peddled by idiots like you who read one figure from Rudiger Overmans and then completely misunderstand it (or Wehraboos deliberately seeking to distort things)
No it's a commonly acknowledged fact. Like I said you are clearly an asshurt limey.

so you're running to some hypothetical now? if it was as easy as britain just "having a large land army" they would have had one throughout both WW1 and WW2 and crushed both wars. you are mentally deficient.

>no they literally didn't.
Yes they did. Crusader, Taranto, the comlete choking off of German trade, the 1944 Burma campaign, Italy, etc.

>not really even in 1936 germany would have beaten the UK in a european conflict
With the tiny army, raw troops and no heavy equipment. Uh-huh, sure. Please show me some historians who claim this and not your /int/posting friends.

> You're counting all the POWs who surrendered after it was clear Germany lost the war
WHich means they were up facing against the Western Allies, which is clearly demonstrable well before 1945.

usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/download/csipubs/connor.pdf (page 71)

>ran to the western allies because they wanted to avoid the Soviets
[citation needed] Show me how many millions of men suddenly abandoned the front, when, and where.

>No it's a commonly acknowledged fact
No, it isn't, because actual historians don't measure things like overall casualties as the sole measure of war-winning performance (Air causalties are just as lopsided in favor of the western allies as Heer kills are for the Soviets. An infantryman is worth as much as a fighter plane, right?), and you have completely skipped over all non-kill casualties because it suits your idiotic agenda.

>Like I said you are clearly an asshurt limey.
Like I said, you have no fucking clue what you're talking about and should kill yourself to save up oxygen that could clearly be put to better use.

>We got to stop the foreign hordes!
>Kills white Germanics
>Lets pakis and other shitskins in and ruin their country

Eternal
Fucking
Anglo

literally 80% of the german divisions were on the eastern front. you are actually retarded just stop for the love of god

dumb limey you are actually retarded im kind of embarrassed of how little you understand of the war.

YOU'RE LITERALLY A BRIT LMAO FUCK OFF

>literally 80% of the german divisions were on the eastern front.
Wrong.
planetar65.blogspot.com/2012/10/german-divisions-deployed-in-wwii.html

no it's not "wrong". you are actually a fucking retard. you just cited some blog article about how there were more divisions on the western front before germany was even at war with russia

please end your life you dumb limey or pick up a book i don't care which

>Could the UK really have been considered a super power during WW2
yes

>no it's not "wrong".
Yes it is wrong. At the highest relative deployment ot the Eastern Front, on Februray of 1942, you have 170 divisions out of 219, for 77% percent, arrayed against the Soviets. It was far less most of the time, including but not limited to all of 1939-40 and all of 1943 onwards.

>you just cited some blog article
You've cited absolutely jack shit, for your initial claim that 80% of the German divisions were put on the Eastern front. Cough up your source.

>t.

Not the user you're arguing with but I'm pretty certain you're confusing casualties with forces. I'm not sure if you could even give a single figure for how much of the Axis forces were in the East as it changed.

i cannot imagine what kind of mouth breathing retard you must be. during the heaviest fighting of the war (ie when the fighting actually mattered) 80% of the german troops were on the eastern front. the western front saw VERY little fighting comparatively, please kill yourself you retarded limey

No i'm not. what figure do you want? you can literally look at a wikipedia page and see that the axis had 80% of their forces fighting on the eastern border during 1941-1943 which were the years the war was won. it honestly blows my mind some of you people can be so ignorant of what is completely basic knowledge. we have one guy in this thread trying to say the western allies did more than the soviets which is hilariously laughable

so everything beyond 1943 doesn't matter despite the fact that's when the majority of german causalities occurred?

when you consider the war was won by mid '43 at the absolute latest pretty much

> no "at best" they could have conquered the entire European continent while Churchill sat on his island

And how would they have retained those conquests, when the civilian population in every single country they occupied hated them fiercely?

>No sources, no knowledge
>Ad hominem
>Writes like a five year old

vs

>Actual Sources
>Reasonably explained arguments
>Well quoted responses

I think this might be a troll thread. No one can be this stubbornly retarded

what sources? you mean the blog citation? fuck off samefagging limey

>samefagging limey

And that shit as well. Here is your (You) to jerk off to kid

yeah man the soviets totally didn't have 80% of their divisions on the eastern front during the heaviest fighting of the war (by far)

please pick up a book. amazes me how clueless some people are on this board about basic history. you're defending a guy who thinks the western allies did more than the USSR during WW2.

The good things britain did was hold onto burma and their small island in the atlantic.
You dont seem to realise how amazing it is the brits didnt yield when they were getting bombed to shit at home and banzai charged in the hot humid jungles of burma.
If britain had fallen and been occupied it would have been a much different war.
Sure they didnt contribute as much as everyone else but thats because their passive role in the war is probably what helped to end it faster.

>if Britain was on the continent it would have been steam-rolled in a land war

>DONT MAKE HYPOTHETICALS

>The Germans were building steam powered tanks by the end of WW2.
No they weren't.

...

>Germany can't invade Britain
>Britain can't invade Germany
>not a stalemate

The absolute state of this site...

>The UK was capable of projecting nation-ending levels of force to multiple regions of the world at once. Therefore, they were a superpower.
What an incredibly retarded pair of sentences. The only nation the bongs could end was their own, which they did when they accepted they were bankrupt and became a vassal state of the US in December 1940.

>If Britain is a loser of WW2 because of the Malaya campaign, why isn't the U.S. because of the Philippines campaign?
Because the bongs rolled over in Malaya in a matter of weeks, while the US fought the Japanese in the Philippines for months beyond that point, destroying Japanese timing and delaying their operations and setting up the coutnerattacks.

However, the bongs never counterattacked. Only the US. The bongs rolled over and surrendered and then did nothing.

>the retard who refuses to understand that 'bankrupt' has a specific meaning is back

Their navy got destroyed

>the bongs never counterattacked
>what is the Burma campaign?

While I don't disagree that the OP is enormously retarded, IJA forces stationed in China had tenth of the fighting power compared to the formations that were sent to the Pacific or CBI theater.

>while the US fought the Japanese in the Philippines for months beyond that point
US didn't fight the Japanese for months. Some remnants hid in the jungles and existed, while the Japanese had full control of the ports, facilities, and everything else they needed.

...

t. assblasted bong still whimpering nonsense

>what is the Burma campaign?
The Burma campaign is when the Japanese destroyed the bongs in a matter of weeks, following which the bongs holed up out of range, doing nothing, for years, until the Americans had completely destroyed the Japanese Navy and air power, upon which the bongs proceeded to walk in basically unopposed attempting to rebuild their meme empire.

False, the Japanese had to fight for months beyond their timeline, calling in additional reinforcements to secure the Philippines. The bongs had rolled over long before, of course.

stop giving the bongposter (you)s

Lol get a load of this guy

Germany could have never successfully invaded England and hitler knew it

WW2 was won by factory workers in the simplest terms.
Industry and manufacturing was the most important factor in the outcome of the war.
UKs manufacturing was very good, even if it was behind USSR,Germany, and USA.
So in that regard, UK was still a super power, but one that was really on the fence between super power and naval power.

The Naval and Air War probably doesn't get enough credit, yes the USSR fought more total troops, but a lot of the early attrition of the German AF was because the UK fought the air war so incredibly well and had the manufacturing to actually eventually outpace Germany in air production. Naval blockades where also super detrimental to the axis powers.

It seems like most people in this thread are only seeing this is a pure combat / kill count war when it was way more complicated then that. Economic / Industrial war on a massive scale.

If you're comparing economy to economy, Britain was well ahead of Germany.

>If you're comparing economy to economy, Britain was well ahead of Germany.
No, Imperial Germany's GDP surpassed the bongs in 1914 or earlier, and there has never been a point since that the bongs have been "well ahead" of Germany, particularly not after they went bankrupt in 1940.

Wrong. warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/mharrison/public/ww2overview1998.pdf (page 21)

You have to remember most of the retards on this board don’t take into account every other factor with war other than how many men died

I can’t imagine the Weimar Republic had a better gdp than England that seems really stupid

I dont have the exact data on specific manufacturing output from the different countries which I think is more important then GDP but I remember seeing a plane output chart multiple times that had UK slightly behind Germany at the start of the war to pulling ahead pretty largely by 1942-1943.
The decimation of the German AF at the hands of the RAF was absolutely crucial to winning the war.
The RAF losses didnt matter as much because it was not a 1 v 1, it was basically a 3 v 1 and Germany still had to fight the US AF and USSR AF so German air losses hit them way harder then UK air losses.

UK had a very shitty role in the war because of how things where but it was still a very important role.
Im a Yankee too so as much as my inner Yank wants to see we won the war completely by ourselves it was a pretty good spread between the 3 great allied powers all contributing different factors very significantly.

No they weren’t you shitstain

No, Churchill informed the US in December 1940 that the bongs were broke and could not continue on without massive US aid. Sorry, but them's the facts.

The bongs defaulted on payments in 1930, so yes they were in just as bad of shape as Weimar Germany.

European economy also is largely irrelevant by 1940 because American bankers basically owned the major European powers by mid WW1

By this I meant that it is pretty pointless to compare GDP of economic puppet states.

So you mean the years when germany had 0 other continental enemies they sent most of their troops to fight the only enemy they have that’s a threat? Gee you don’t say